BUG: Cross Reference Confusion in Bible Search

Please omit the inclusion of translators notes (transnote) when a bible reference is used in Bible Search. It was always understood to apply to cross references and now v10.1 introduces this change under the heading:

Resolved a bug that caused reference searches in Bibles to only find cross-references.

Wow! The change was very well disguised, but now try these examples:

run a Bible Search for bible:1Kings7 in the NET bible -

you will get 28 results in 18 verses,
but none of them is a cross-reference!
Does the NET have cross-references? Yes, it does
but not for 1 Kings 7 because crossref:bible:1Kings7 has zero results.
If you try transnote:bible:1Kings7 it becomes clear that they are all Translators Notes

run a Bible Search for bible:1Kings7 in the ESV bible -

you will get 90 results in 71 verses
but crossref:bible:1Kings7 shows that only 86 are cross references!

So now we are forced to use crossref to be sure of the results we are getting. I'm afraid it is another example of FL making the new 'simple' Search into something that is no longer simple as well as confusing.

Also, FL please note that xref:bible:Genesis–Revelation is allowed (with zero results across my Library) whilst any other variant produces an error message e.g.aref, cref, tref.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Also, FL please note that xref:bible:Genesis–Revelation is allowed (with zero results across my Library) whilst any other variant produces an error message e.g.aref, cref, tref.

"xref:" is allowed because it's a valid field name. The others cause errors because they are not valid field names.

The only resource I could find that supports the "xref" field is LLS:29.3.11.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1237373#Comment_1237373

Thanks for the preview of 10.2!

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1237430#Comment_1237430

Thanks for the preview of 10.2!

Heh; didn't think about that! It'll be coming soon to L10 beta testers.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

you will get 28 results in 18 verses,

but none of them is a cross-reference!

I disagree.

The hits in 2 Kings 16:17, 25:13; 1 Chron 18:8; Ps 23:6, 27:4 (and many others) are clear cross references that are useful for further study, even if they're included in a prose study note, and not simply a list of "pure" cross references with no explanatory context.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1237886#Comment_1237886

you will get 28 results in 18 verses,

but none of them is a cross-reference!

I disagree.

The hits in 2 Kings 16:17, 25:13; 1 Chron 18:8; Ps 23:6, 27:4 (and many others) are clear cross references that are useful for further study, even if they're included in a prose study note, and not simply a list of "pure" cross references with no explanatory context.

This is a clear example of why precise definitions are needed so that users can know what they are looking at. Yes, for many users a slap-dash guesstimation is sufficient but for academic work or those wanting the precision of academic work, precise definitions are essential. Otherwise, smart-aleck students can make you look like a fool. [I know ... I was one of those smart-aleck students from the day I entered school, although not always intentionally.]

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1237886#Comment_1237886

I disagree.

The hits in 2 Kings 16:17, 25:13; 1 Chron 18:8; Ps 23:6, 27:4 (and many others) are clear cross references that are useful for further study, even if they're included in a prose study note, and not simply a list of "pure" cross references with no explanatory context.

Faithlife are only creating confusion and uncertainty with a change that was sneaked in as a "bug" without proper explanation from the way that bible references worked in Logos 9 and Logos 10.0. I find it inexcusable that this should happen at all as users should be able to decide for themselves if translators notes are useful as cross-references, or it can be encouraged from other users in the forums. FL should not force their interpretation upon features just because it might be useful.

I note that FL have misused other operators like IN when it would be more appropriate to expand that usage under "Default" or "Broad" reference matching and allow experienced users to continue with "Narrow" matching.